Five False Predictions of the AIDS Establishment

by Liam Scheff
May 15, 2010
Special Report for LewRockwell.com

1. We're All At Risk:
In 1987, the fear-and-death hyperbole machine that is the engine of 'public health'
pandemania was in such ferocious motion, that Oprah Winfrey issued this warning:
Research studies now project that one in five listen to me, hard to believe one in five
heterosexuals could be dead from AIDS at the end of the next three years. Thats by 1990.
One in five.

Although Americans have grown rounder, not thinner, Oprah has never apologized for
her wild-eyed hyperbole. But the mainstream has, issuing warnings in the press that the
threat of a global heterosexual pandemic has disappeared, (UK Independent, 2008)
and that worldwide AIDS numbers are over-inflated, needing to be halved or more,
because the AIDS public relations machine has created a house of numbers. (quote
from Dr. James Chin, former head of the World Health Organizations AIDS Statistics Unit).
There's the saying that if you
knew what sausages are made
of, most people would hesitate
to eat them, because they
wouldn't like what's in it...
And if you knew how HIV/AIDS
numbers are cooked, or made
up, you would use them with
extreme caution.
- Dr. James Chin, former head of
the World Health Organizations
AIDS Statistics Unit, in House of
Numbers.

2. AIDS is an Incurable Disease:

AIDS is, in fact, what its always been a variety of different illnesses manifesting very
differently in different people and populations. It's been no 'one size fits all' diagnosis. It

has proven best-treatable by a multilateral approach a combination of nutritional,

pharmaceutical, and lifestyle interventions which have done best to leave the harder,
sanctified AIDS Drugs behind.
Notably, those who jumped on the FDA-approved bandwagon, with high-dose AZT, or
those who hit early and hit hard with drug cocktails died fastest, and died horribly,
poisoned by the pharmaceutical establishment.
3. AIDS Is a Sexually Transmitted Disease:
From 1987 to 1997, a team of researchers in Northern California at the University of
California, Berkeley, conducted the longest study on heterosexual transmission on record.
They studied 175 sexually-active long-term couples, one person in each twosome
testing HIV positive, one HIV negative. The pairs entered the study having every kind of
sex imaginable, up, down, front and back, with a majority not using condoms. Over six
years, they were encouraged to use latex, but a large percentage continue not to. The
results?

I think HIV is more difficult to

transmit than other sexuallytransmitted - than a lot of, probably
most other sexually-transmitted
diseases.
I mean, I think that's pretty widely
known.
- Dr. Nancy Padian, on her 10-year study
Heterosexual Transmission of HIV in
Northern California, from House of
Numbers.

At the end of the study, of the 175 negative partners, a very low number had converted
from HIV negative to HIV positive, despite regular sexual exposure to their positive
partner. A very low number, indeed.In fact, the number was so low, that Wikipedia, the
guardian of all populist junk science, has censored The Padian Study, as it's known,

from its AIDS and HIV pages. The number? Zero. No one, nobody, not a single
person who tested negative became positive, despite years of sex with a positive
partner.
We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study [nobody became HIV positive]
This evidence argues for low infectivity in the absence of either needle sharing and/or
other cofactors. - (American Journal of Epidemiology, 1997).

This is a heck of a thing for a presumed STD, and has more to do with the realities of
HIV testing than the mainstream cares to admit
4. HIV Testing Stops the Spread of AIDS:
AIDS has, through the constant loosening of official definitions and expansion of
symptoms and illnesses, been turned into a brand-name worldwide for any disease of
poverty, drug abuse, pharmaceutical poisoning or environmental intoxication.
AIDS functions as a blanket term laid heavily on the backs of limited but massive
populations, mostly in Africa, who suffer endemic poverty, and all that accompany it
dangerously polluted water, no food, and chronic bacterial and parasitic infection.
But the AIDS industry has not stopped the call for more and more toxic drugs, given to
people who don't even have enough food to keep down, or clean water to swallow with.
These are the very people who are considered at risk for AIDS, therefore they are most
heavily targeted for HIV testing internationally. AIDS prefigures HIV testing, and HIV
testing is problematic
5. HIV Tests are Ethical and Accurate, and Everybody Should Take One:
The medical literature accumulated over 25 years of antibody and genetic testing for
HIV have revealed that HIV tests are good at one thing: Testing for every disease, nondisease, medical condition and non-medical condition on the planet. These tests come up
positive for flu vaccination, alcoholism, drug use, parasitic infection and pregnancy;
for reasons that are unclear, and for cross-reaction with the materials in the test kit
themselves.
After 25 years, the tests still have no gold reference standard, that is, they refer to no
particular particle, and they find no particular set of antibodies or genetic material,
despite the massive public relations of the pharma-machine that has grown in South
Africa and North America to promote their use.

 At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of

antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood. - Abbott Laboratories (the standard HIV
test manufacturer) 2006.
[The tests] error rate wont matter much in areas with a high prevalence of HIV, because
in all probability the people testing false-positive will have the disease. But if the same test
was performed on 1,000 white, affluent suburban housewives a low-prevalence
population in all likelihood all positive results will be false, and positive predictive values
plummet to zero. - AIDS Alert (industry journal), March 1998.
Establishing the cutoff value to define a positive test result from a negative one is
somewhat arbitrary. Where might the blood bank director and the head of drug treatment
want the cutoff point to be for each program? Who would probably want a lower cutoff
value? - United States Centers for Disease Control.

HIV tests, in a word, stink. They're unethical, they give a death sentence without cause,
and because they are targeted at populations assumed to have AIDS, they CAUSE the
spread of HIV, by giving false results to populations already in crisis.
But despite these insurmountable failures, the AIDS machine rages on, waging war on
critics and patients alike.
Here's what you can do to stop it: Talk about it. Promote open discussion of the
definition of AIDS and the critical appraisal of HIV testing. And most of all, be kind to
people given the false HIV positive diagnosis. Given the opportunity, many can recover
through a variety of means, once the medical infrastructure stops telling them that they're
doomed to die no matter what, just because of a lousy test result.

AIDS and HIV information on tests, drugs and recovery:

ReducetheBurden.org
www.ARAS.ab.ca/test.html
www.Dr-Rath-Foundation.org.za/index.html
Liam Scheff is an independent investigator and journalist who broke the story of government/pharma
drug trials in New York orphans with toxic AIDS drugs. He is featured in the film House of Numbers,
on DVD soon. Find him online at LiamScheff.com
See the movie trailer and buy the DVD at www.HouseofNumbers.com